Secondary Navigation

Re: [GTh] A New Tack on Translating RWME

I have an observation, Could the lack of male dominance in the translation be a subtle or not so subtle left over from assuming that Gospel of Thomas must be

Message 1 of 11
, May 6, 2008

I have an observation,

Could the lack of male dominance in the translation be a subtle or not
so subtle left over from assuming that Gospel of Thomas must be in
fact a gnostic text?

That is, because the gnostics might have used certain forms ( Later)
removing the male oriented original intent. (Due to their beliefs
systems)

The translators would be inclined to translate and remove the male
orientation, which likely was the case in the original Greek copy( Or
Aramaic).

Either way I ask this?

How it is translated today( say by removing the male dominance Of
ANTHROPOS, and other words within the text).

WOuld that be how it was written or originally intended.

That is we may( and others may want to make it culturally acceptable,
and bring certain bias to the text which might never have occurred
when it was originally written.

I would say "How " it is translated should be focused in on the
timeline.

If it would not have been said or written in that day and time? It
should not be translated in a way that differs from that text and
it's Sitz im leben.

Therefore, in the society and time in which it occurred. Which is the
most likely translation?

I would suggest that it would be male,but I ask openly.

Regards,

John Moon
Springfield,Tenn.
John Moon

On May 5, 2008, at 10:06 AM, Michael Grondin wrote:

> What this shows, I think, is that the Greek translators on the JSem
> translational panel didn't agree with Meyer and Patterson on a
> radical program of translating every occurrence of ANTHROPOS
> in gender-neutral terms, _even though_ those other translators
> were interested in eliminating gender-bias. This in turn agrees
> with what Marlowe has to say, so I think it's fair to conclude that
> what Meyer takes as an implication of the Anthropos Principle
> is in fact - and independently of the Principle - unsound as well.

1. That RWME corresponds to ANTHRWPOS, and that
2. ANTHRWPOS should always be translated as gender-neutral.

On the other side of the issue, Doresse thought (late 50's) that Thomas
was gnostic, yet he retained 'man' in his translation (_The Secret Books
of the Egyptian Gnostics_). Grant and Freedman (_The Secret Sayings
of Jesus_, 1960) also took Thomas to be gnostic, yet they used the
Schoedel translation, which retains 'man'.

Though I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at with your other
questions, I think we can rule out that any version of Thomas ever had
a special vocabulary. Of course we can only speculate about an
Aramaic or Syrian version, but the Coptic RWME and the Greek
ANTHRWPOS have an ambiguity to them which is also present in
the English word 'man'. Sometimes it's a generic or species-related
meaning, as in 'Anthropology is the study of Man' or (from Thomas)
'Man is like a wise fisherman'. Sometimes it's used to refer to individuals
who happen to be male. As to how one _should_ translate Coptic Thomas,
that question would lead to an interminable debate which would, I think,
come down in the end to one's point of view.

Mike Grondin

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.